Oh certainly, any personal account is going to be full of selection bias. But it helps give a look behind the scenes to help interpret the stats and whatnot we see in academic papers. Those stats come with a cost, and the cost was often born by minorities and those who weren't well-connected. That's my point here.
All a UBI of $100 will do is raise prices by $100 because people now have $100 more
That $100 has to come from somewhere, and if we follow a balanced budget, it's not coming from debt, but from taxes.
But yes, there will be some price adjustment if something like UBI is done in a vacuum. Look at the COVID subsidies for examples of just that, or the EV subsidies where dealers/manufacturers just jack up the price of EVs to match the credit.
I'm proposing replacing minimum wage w/ something like UBI (my preference is a Negative Income Tax for more of a direct replacement). That way that $100 isn't being added to peoples' means, but instead it's replacing wages. Just increasing wages kills jobs, and just increasing money available causes inflation. So if minimum wage is $15, with $10 of that being needed for subsistence (housing and food, no luxuries), you'd instead get $10/hr regardless and jobs would pay $5/hr or whatever. That gives employees the freedom to say no to poor working conditions and inadequate pay without worrying about where their next meal is coming from. If nobody wants to work for those wages, wages will go up. If immigrants or teenagers are willing to take those jobs, wages will go down. A lot of jobs aren't worth $15 and would be (and are) replaced with automation instead. This allows those jobs to continue to exist, without forcing people to be destitute. Likewise, if automation replaces a significant chunk of human labor, those people can continue to survive and pursue other options for employment (i.e. maybe they'll pursue art or something).
I don't think that type of policy would meaningfully impact prices. First of all, NIT (basically income-based UBI) was championed by Milton Friedman, a respected economist, and he certainly looked into inflationary pressure of such a system. Price increases are tempered by fed borrowing rate increases and NIT/UBI payout adjustments, which can keep total inflation stable, so any price changes are just moving money from one pocket to another. It's only inflationary if we use borrowed money to fund it, but if it's budgeted for through taxes, it's not going to be inflationary.
rich will always be at the top
Sure, and moving to socialism won't change that, all it does is replace "the rich" with "the well-connected."
People being rich isn't a problem, especially since generational wealth is often gone after 3 generations. Rockefeller's (arguably the richest person ever) wealth has bees significantly diluted, so even the mega-wealthy will eventually lose their wealth. I'm guessing in 100 years, Musk's, Bezos', and Gates' wealth will be largely diluted. Elon Musk wasn't "mega-wealthy" 15 years ago. Jeff Bezos became rich around 25 years ago. Bill Gates became rich about 40 years ago. Most of the top billionaires are recently wealthy, and the same is largely true for multi-millionaires as well.
The important thing is that who "the rich" are changes periodically so we don't get into a Russian oligarch situation.
Instead of looking at the income/wealth gap, we should be looking at standard of living changes for the average (median) person. As long as that's improving year-over-year, things are getting better. Whether some people have tens or hundreds of millions doesn't really impact me day-to-day.